Peter wrote:One who acts like a fool will always be treated as a fool.
As soon as one stops acting like a fool, one stops being treated as a fool.

I have seen people come to forums, act foolish, suffer the consequences, realize their error, stop acting foolishly, and quickly become a productive member of the forum. Really, it doesn't take much.

I see, in other words they fully submitted to the mass intimidation of the religious society who treated them as if they were a fool because they did not see the need for more traditionalism.

And when the social programming is called out, when the social bullying is called out, it is denied to even have existed. Still, it is the person who is being socially ostracized into inferior submission who is at fault by making things harder than necessary when one could just get on with it and submit. If pressed any further, then the non-traditional person is assumed by the group to be paranoid and mentally ill, which is further social bullying.

One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.

Try not to worry about it. Just be yourself as you are now. Let the chips fall where they may. That's my advice, plus this:

flyingOx wrote:If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist...

zero seconds. Nobody wants to see that.

flyingOx wrote:... or will such a person never be fully accepted ...

forget about expecting full acceptance. None of us has that, and none of us will get it.

flyingOx wrote:... in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

Please allow me to extend to you a measure of respect as a fellow human being, and sincere recognition of your sense of dignity.

flyingOx wrote:How many lashings must one take?

zero.

flyingOx wrote:... or does it even matter?

Only if you let it matter to you.

flyingOx wrote:Will one ever truly be treated like one of the others ...

Probably not. But why do you want to be treated like "the others" any way? You can't control how others treat you. But you might be able to decide how to react to that.

flyingOx wrote:... or will one in such a predicament always be expected to submit from there on out?

Nothing lasts forever.

Ox, my sincere and respectful advice to you and anyone else in this type of situation is to try not to worry about it. Just weather the blows as well as you can, participate according to your desires, take a break when you need to, and try to forgive those whom you perceive are disrespecting you. We're all human, and we all make mistakes. You have an opportunity here to take the high road.

Best wishes

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.

flyingOx wrote:I have a loaded question to ask:
If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

How many lashings must one take or does it even matter? Will one ever truly be treated like one of the others or will one in such a predicament always be expected to submit from there on out?

It depends on the act and the people involved. But why worry what others think if you are comfortable with your own actions, especially if such a faux pas is in the past? If people misjudge you, then they are at fault for the misjudgment and there's no reason to feel self-doubt for not fitting in with their expectations.

Please allow me to extend to you a measure of respect as a fellow human being, and sincere recognition of your sense of dignity...

...Ox, my sincere and respectful advice to you and anyone else in this type of situation is to try not to worry about it. Just weather the blows as well as you can, participate according to your desires, take a break when you need to, and try to forgive those whom you perceive are disrespecting you. We're all human, and we all make mistakes. You have an opportunity here to take the high road.

Best wishes

Thank you for those kind words, Jechbi.

But if I do as you say, “take the high road,” in other words do what is considered the right thing to do according to Buddhism, which would be to give up the last ditch effort of self-concern, then would I not be truly insane? If I were to completely dissociate from all notions of self-concern, would I not be brain dead? Does Buddhism lead to ego suicide? Are you sure that is really a safe thing to accomplish? It seems rather frightening in some aspects. I understand that the less there is of myself, the more peace that I notice, but what if that is just a distraction for what is actually developing: a completely terrifying state of complete abandonment where one has no defenses because one no longer has a sense of self and therefore no longer has the desire to protect oneself if true bodily or mental harm were to ever actually come one’s way?

Just where is this Buddhism stuff taking me? And why are we discouraged from talking about it? What are you all hiding? It sounds rather suspicious to me.

One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.

flyingOx wrote:But if I do ... what is considered the right thing to do according to Buddhism, which would be to give up the last ditch effort of self-concern...

Buddhism does not teach this.

I understand that the less there is of myself, the more peace that I notice, but what if that is just a distraction for what is actually developing: a completely terrifying state of complete abandonment where one has no defenses because one no longer has a sense of self and therefore no longer has the desire to protect oneself if true bodily or mental harm were to ever actually come one’s way?

If that is what you are trying to accomplish then you should stop practice right now. Because, again, this is not what Buddhism teaches. For example, Devadatta sent a drunk elephant charging at the Buddha with the aim of killing him and the Buddha stopped it. For another example, Angulimala ran towards the Buddha with the intent to kill him and the Buddha stopped him.

Flyingox: have you considered seeking professional help? I can sense a lot of anger in you. Seriously, you may need to consider seeing a psychologist. I am not saying this to aggravate or insult you. It's out of concern for you. Metta.

flyingOx wrote:But if I do ... what is considered the right thing to do according to Buddhism, which would be to give up the last ditch effort of self-concern...

Buddhism does not teach this.

So one who practices Buddhism SHOULD have self concern? Then what is all of this talk about accomplishing no self? If there is no self, then there also would not be any self-concern.

I understand that the less there is of myself, the more peace that I notice, but what if that is just a distraction for what is actually developing: a completely terrifying state of complete abandonment where one has no defenses because one no longer has a sense of self and therefore no longer has the desire to protect oneself if true bodily or mental harm were to ever actually come one’s way?

If that is what you are trying to accomplish then you should stop practice right now. Because, again, this is not what Buddhism teaches. For example, Devadatta sent a drunk elephant charging at the Buddha with the aim of killing him and the Buddha stopped it. For another example, Angulimala ran towards the Buddha with the intent to kill him and the Buddha stopped him.

Perhaps Buddhism like all other religions that I have studied is self-condradictory. Again, I thought that someone who has reached Buddhahood is someone who has gone beyond the concept of having a self?

Just where is this Buddhism stuff taking me?

To the ending of suffering.

So is this the only goal? If so, then like I have said previously, I think that I already have that, as far as what I would consider suffering, anyway. I have a sense of unshakable peace all the time, whether it seems like I am angry, sad, or in any other emotional state or not.

And why are we discouraged from talking about it?

Because there isn't much that can be said about it.

If this is truly the only reason for not talking about it, then why do so many people throw god aweful fits whenever someone talks about it?

Last edited by flyingOx on Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.

shjohnk wrote:Flyingox: have you considered seeking professional help? I can sense a lot of anger in you. Seriously, you may need to consider seeing a psychologist. I am not saying this to aggravate or insult you. It's out of concern for you. Metta.

In other words, you can't explain your own religion enough to me, so you will just get rid of me by sending me to a shrink, right? Do you think that every time someone seems angry or frustrated that they should seek professional help?

One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.

OK, now explain it to me. It says that existence and non-existence are the extremes, but Buddha is one who walks the middle way. Does this mean that what the Buddha experiences is neither existence nor non-existence? If so, then I thought that that is what Buddha said was not enough when he said that the deathless is even beyond perception nor non-perception.

But please explain this sutta to me, if you can or if you are permitted to doing so without committing a faux pas.

One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.

flyingOx wrote:It says that existence and non-existence are the extremes, but Buddha is one who walks the middle way. Does this mean that what the Buddha experiences is neither existence nor non-existence?

That's what everyone experiences, they're just generally not aware that it is so and thus interpret their experiences in terms of existence and non-existence.

flyingOx wrote:If so, then I thought that that is what Buddha said was not enough when he said that the deathless is even beyond perception nor non-perception.

Non-perception would be nothingness or "no experience" which is incorrect. Thus, beyond "non-perception".

Perception would involve sensory input and classification and categorisation of that input (e.g. book, tree, sun) but the Buddha does not cling to or place any credence in the classification. He is aware that it is an abstraction, a cognitive conceptualisation of that original sensory input. Thus, concept and reality are never actually aligned, and hence the deathless is "beyond perception".

I can explain Buddhism to you, it's very simple: All existence is suffering, the cause of suffering is craving, so the way to end suffering is to extinguish craving. The way toi extinguish craving is to not harm yourself or any other living being by any action, thought or word. If you put that in to practice, you will derive the benefits: How much benefit you obtain depends on your efforts. Couldn't be simpler.

I can see my post angered you and I regret posting: I should have realised it would upset you, so I apologise. It's just I have had anger issues as well and I know from my own experience (which is the only experience the Buddha said was wortn anything) how destructive such emotions are. To yourself. And no, I don't really think 'shrinks' can help people much: But it seems to me that you are not about to start practicing what the Buddha taught any time soon (I hope I'm wrong as that's better than all the shrinks in the world), so you need to deal with your anger: maybe a shrink could help you enough to calm you down enough so you can be ready to seriously practice what the Buddha taught.

Anyway, sorry for antagonizing you - It was not appropriate action by me.

I can explain Buddhism to you, it's very simple: All existence is suffering, the cause of suffering is craving, so the way to end suffering is to extinguish craving. The way toi extinguish craving is to not harm yourself or any other living being by any action, thought or word. If you put that in to practice, you will derive the benefits: How much benefit you obtain depends on your efforts. Couldn't be simpler.

I can see my post angered you and I regret posting: I should have realised it would upset you, so I apologise. It's just I have had anger issues as well and I know from my own experience (which is the only experience the Buddha said was wortn anything) how destructive such emotions are. To yourself. And no, I don't really think 'shrinks' can help people much: But it seems to me that you are not about to start practicing what the Buddha taught any time soon (I hope I'm wrong as that's better than all the shrinks in the world), so you need to deal with your anger: maybe a shrink could help you enough to calm you down enough so you can be ready to seriously practice what the Buddha taught.

Anyway, sorry for antagonizing you - It was not appropriate action by me.

That's alright. I don't REALLY hold anything against anyone. And please don't say that I won't be practicing what Buddha taught any time soon. You never know. I might put my anger mode down in the next second or two. I have gained much peace from Buddha's teachings, and it was this very concept of anger that made me realize that Gautama Buddha was onto something. I used to be a very angry and hateful individual. When I got tired of being stressed out over ever little thing, I decided to give Buddha's teachings a try. As soon as I put it into practice, I realized the benefits. I had a sense of peace that I had never had before, and it hasn't left me since. I still pick up my emotional modes from time to time to examine them to see where they might be getting their original motivation for development.
Peace to you.

One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.

flyingOx wrote:It says that existence and non-existence are the extremes, but Buddha is one who walks the middle way. Does this mean that what the Buddha experiences is neither existence nor non-existence?

That's what everyone experiences, they're just generally not aware that it is so and thus interpret their experiences in terms of existence and non-existence.

flyingOx wrote:If so, then I thought that that is what Buddha said was not enough when he said that the deathless is even beyond perception nor non-perception.

Non-perception would be nothingness or "no experience" which is incorrect. Thus, beyond "non-perception".

Perception would involve sensory input and classification and categorisation of that input (e.g. book, tree, sun) but the Buddha does not cling to or place any credence in the classification. He is aware that it is an abstraction, a cognitive conceptualisation of that original sensory input. Thus, concept and reality are never actually aligned, and hence the deathless is "beyond perception".

Metta,
Retro.

Thank you for that good explanation. So, is there really a self, or is there not a self? According to what you have said above, then there really is no self. It is just a label that we have given our collection of parts and energies.

One is encouraged to seek the truth, but be warned if you ever find it, you will be treated as blasphemous.